
2ff 



\81 



3n 962 
.044 
'Opy 1 

THE MORAL BASIS OF THE CLAIM 

OF THE 

REPUBLIC OF IRELAND 

FOR OFFICIAL RECOGNITION 



A Speech Delivered by 

EAMON DE VALERA 



at Worcester, Mass., February 6, 1920 



American Commission on Irish Independence 
41 1 Fifth Avenue, New York 



.427 



BASES OF IRELAND'S CLAIM 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

As most of you are probably aware, the primary object of my 
mission to your country is to secure official recognition for the 
elected government of the Republic of Ireland. 

Our moral claim for recognition is based on these foundations : 

1. That the people of every nation are entitled to the right 
of choosing for themselves the governmental institutions 
under which they shall live. 

2. That Ireland is a nation and, as such, that her people 
have a right to determine for themselves their govern- 
mental institutions. 

3. That the Irish people have, in fact, determined their 
government and have declared their will in an un- 
mistakable manner. By their suffrages they have estab- 
lished an Independent Republic and chosen as their 
government this government on whose behalf, as its 
Chief Executive, I am here claiming formal official 
recognition. 

Based, as our claim is, on these foundations — on principles 
that are universally accepted as very axioms, and on facts which 
can be so proven that there is no denying them — we have a right 
to expect that those who would reject our claim should give their 
reasons. 

It is not on us the burden of proof should be put. It is rather 
those who would deny Ireland's right who should be called upon to 
give their arguments. That the Irish people are entitled to self 
determination, that the Irish Nation is entitled to its independence 
appears to us a self evident proposition. 

AMERICANISM 

Why should I have to prove in any place where democracy 
is understood that the consent of the people governed is the one 
legitimate basis on which the government of nations can be iounded. 
Why above all, should I have to prove it here in the United states 
of America— time of all times— at the very moment when your 
nation's representatives— your Congress and your Executive— are 
considering the final act of a great and bloody war waged by 
America avowedly for this as one of the principles. 

W^ere I addressing the citizens of some country ^yhere imperial- 
ism and not democracy is the rule of their national 1^^^, I wouW 
feel called upon to establisk these foundations, perjiaps. io dwell 



Sourca Ut\k,r\o\wrv 
1 *a.Q 



upon them here would seem almost an implied insult to you, for 
these foundations on which we rely could be denied by Americans 
only if they had forgotten all they gave assent to for the past four 
years, if they had forgotten their own Declaration of Independence 
and knew not that these principles are the very mainsprings of all 
your institutions. 

To the European, Americanism means the embodiment of the 
principle of self determination of government by the consent of the 
governed, if it means anything. I shall take it, therefore, that 
these principles, as general principles, are granted here, and now I 
ask on what grounds can anyone deny application of them to Ireland. 

IRELAND A NATION 

_ Ireland is a nation judged by every accepted general criterion of 
nationhood,* admittedly so even by the enemy statesmen of Britain 
— not two nations (as the present British Premier would like you 
to believe) but one nation,! with a unity and continuity of national 
life proceeding unbroken from the past, more ancient than any 
existing European nation except Greece, and with an intensity of 
national consciousness among its people corresponding to its anti- 
quity. If nations in general are entitled to the right of national self 
determination, some good reason must be brought forward by those 
who deny that right to the nation of Ireland. 

WHY EXCLUDE IRELAND? 

I ask everyone of you here to reflect for a moment and to ask 
yourselves if you know of any, even a single reason for the denial 
to Ireland of a right which you are willing to concede as in gen- 
eral the right of all nations. I have kept my ears and eyes open 
since I came to this country; I have been constantly on the watch 
for any argument which might seem to be a good argument for the 
exclusion of Ireland from the benefit of the general principle. I 
have noted many an attack on the Irish people and on Ireland's 
cause and I have failed to find any which could be called a good 
argument against Ireland's case. 

Taking into account the assiduity of our opponents, I think 
their failure to discover a good argument might, in itself, be taken 
as fair proof that no such argument exists. When one has good 
arguments on one's side one does not usually reject them and rely, 
instead, on misstatements, misrepresentations, baseless assertions 
and abuse. I would like to know if anyone here can suggest a 
reason which seems to them good enough to justify the exclusion 
of the nation of Ireland from national self-determination — conceded 
now as a general right of all nations. I mean this as a genuine 
challenge and not as a mere rhetorical question. 



*ChesieTton 
IfAsquith 



Is it that the Irish nation is not a nation at all? History, as 
I haA'e said, and present day facts, which are there for everyone to 
investigate, are against those who would hold such a view. 1 am 
content to leave this to every fair-minded person to examine for 
himself or herself, confident that no objection can be raised to 
Ireland's claim on the ground of nationality.* 

HAS IRELAND SOLD HER BIRTHRIGHT? 

Is it then that the Irish nation has sold its birthright and by 
some contract or other has put itself outside the pale of free natioral 
choice and national independence now. History has no record of any 
such transaction. Refusal to sell their birthright; refusal to allow 
their distinct national individuality to be annihilated or submerged 
has cost the people of Ireland seven hundred and fifty years of blood 
and agony. 

Throughout the past it has been precisely this that has been 
the issue in the contest between Ireland and England — it is this 
that is the issue between Ireland and Britain today^that Ireland 
will not give up her own individuality as a nation and will not 
surrender her title to independence as a separate nation. 

The British Government no doubt claims that Ireland has made 
such a surrender— that she is indissolubly bound in a partnership 
with Britain, but the Irish people have never admitted or accepted 
any such partnership; they have, on the contrary, repudiated and 
refused it and have fought constantly against it to the utmost of 
their power. Their record in this respect is in fact, in itself, ample 
evidence of the hollowness of Britain's claim. 

England or Britain has never held Ireland except by force; 
never for a single moment has any English or British government 
dared to Vv^ithdraw its troops from Ireland. As to-day they can 
only hold Ireland by howitzers and machine guns, by aeroplanes 
and tanks, by bombs and poison gas, so in the past, also, it was 
only by these same methods of brute force that they have been 
able to hold Ireland. 

Which is this regime of force evidence of? Is it of voluntary 
partnership and legitimate contract? Is it evidence of an accepted 
political union? Or, is it not evidence, rather, of "the union of the 
shark with its prey?"t 

THE PLEA OF SECESSION 

Those Avho would prejudice Ireland's case in the eyes of 
Americans talk of Ireland's "attempt at secession." There can be 
no secession where there has been no union; no divorce where 
there has been no marriage. England's act of "Union" enaced 
against the will of the Irish people by a body legally incompetent 
to enact it (a body that was not elected by the people— a body 
bribed to surrender what was not theirs to surrender), enacted 

"^'Cheslerlon 



Mle that It had "no moral title to existence whatever.'' 

Eighty-six coercion acts, that practically deprived the Tri.h 

actively m force at this very moment, that gives to the B?ftish 
Government m Ireland powers over the indiv^idual Irishman and 
Irishwoman in excess of those it possessed in virtue of Xe war 
time regulations, even an act that substitutes the arbitrary rul^ of 
Brrtains military satraps for properly constituted civil authodty 
and deprives the Irish citizens of all the safeguards to hidiS^^^ 
rights that obtain among civilized people. It fs tl us tha Enohnd 
mamtains her so-called "Union" tod^ and thus she ha mah ta n d 
it for- the past thirty-two years. "Voluntary Union" indeed! 

"Secession" indeed !_ "Divorce" indeed! It would be about as 

mm "Jh.^K A ^^ ^ ^Y^ T^'" '''.''' '^'''Sgrmg to win her freedom 

from the bugand who had earned her off and was keeping her 

from BritS.. ^''''^' '^''''' ^^ ^''^^''^ ^^ ^'^^ «^^-"&§les for freedom 

THE PLEA OF BRITAIN'S SECURITY. 

err. Z'^'l p'l' -'^ ^°"^et^"^es s.aid tha.t England cannot let Ireland 
?o Mand ' ^ °'^" security demands that she should hold on 

Now I am more than ready to admit that if the concession of 
I elands right conflicted with the equal right of another nation, 
that other nation would have a right to object until there had been 
a proper adjustment between the rival rights. But is it a question 
of an equal right in the case of Britain— is it a right at all— this 
so-called security of Britain? 

Is it security England really wants, or is this not a word care- 
fully chosen to deceive by giving the color of right to what is 
tunaamentally not right at all, but narrow selfish interest? 
_ It may be to my interest to deprive of his liberty a possible 
rival or competitor or even one whom a possible rival or competitor 
might m conceivable circumstances make use of against me— but 
surely it isn't my right. It is not my security, in the accepted sense 
of the word, that is m question here, but my dominance. 

And so it is not England's legitimate security or safety that is 
in question m the case of Ireland, but rather England's dominance. 
And that England may continue to hold Ireland's markets as a 
commercial monopoly to profiteer upon, and that she may continue 



to hold Irish harbors as a pirate's rendevous from which to issue 
forth on the adjacent trade routes and strangle any commercial 
or imperial rival she may have grown to dread — are these interests 
of England good and just reasons why Ireland should be deprived 
of the most fundamental of all a nation's rights — the right to be 
free? To me such a doctrine is so immoral that I cannot understand 
how any normal conscience can support it. 



WKERS WOULD THIS DOCTRINE LEAD TO? 

I have frequently pointed out that, if once admitted, that plea 
Avould justify aggression everywhere, would destroy the funda- 
mental equality of right between all nations and would subordinate 
the most sacred right of the small nation to the selfish interests 
of the great — and this simply because the great was powerful 
enough to make its interest prevail. On the basis of this so-called 
"security" Germany might have claimed to hold Belgium. France, 
might claim to hold it, particularly now, as she could point out that 
it was through the gate of Belgium she was attacked during the last 
war. Britain might claim to hold it on the basis that Antwerp is a 
pistol pointed at England's heart. On the same basis England 
might claim all the Channel j5orts. And so on around the world, 
every spot of earth might be grabbed up to make the world safe 
for empire — and no small nation would have any right to existence 
whatever. 

To me England's attitude appears morally on all fours with 
that of a timorous tyrant who would secure his own domination 
by bastilling and guillotining every one who, tmder circumstances 
which he can conjure up, might prove either a source of danger to 
his person or to his power. 

If this plea of England's be admitted now it is certainly a 
strange commentary on a v/ar fought for the rights of small nations 
and it is an indication of how far mankind has yet to travel before 
even the elements of morality can find a place in the rules of inter- 
national behavior. 



ENGLAND'S WAY OUT 

On the other hand, if it were really her independence and her 
simple right to life as a national state that Britain wanted to safe- 
guard, she could easily make provision for that without^ in_ any 
way infringing upon the equally sacred right of Ireland to its inde- 
pendence and to its life. 

The United States by the Monroe Doctrine made provision 
for its security without depriving the Latin Republics of the South 
of their independence and their Hfe. The United States safeguarded 



itself from the possible use of tlie Island of Cuba as a base for an 
attack by a foreign power by stipulating: 

"That the Government of Cuba shall never enter into 
any treaty or other compact with any foreign power or 
powers which will impair or tend to impair the inde- 
pendence of Cuba, nor in any manner authorize or permit 
any foreign power or powers to obtain by colonization 
of for military or naval purposes or otherwise, lodgment 
m or control over any portion of said Island." 

Why doesn't Britain do thus with Ireland as the United States 
did with Cuba? 

Why doesn't Britain declare a Monroe doctrine for the two 
neighboring Islands? The people of Ireland so far from obiecting, 
would cooperate with their whole soul in a regional understandiiio^ 
of that sort. ^ 

PLEA DISHONEST 

But there are even other ways in which Britain could safeguard 
Itself if this plea were really an honest plea. An international 
instrument could easily be framed— as in the case of Belgium— an 
instrument that meant m.ore for the safety of France, as the last 
war proved, than the actual possession of Belgian territory, espe- 
cially if such possession were against the will and despite the pro- 
tests of the Belgium people. 

Again, the Peace Conference and the creation of a League of 
Nations gave England another opportunity, if England or Britain 
were minded to avail of it. In a genuine League of Nations the 
contracting parties could easily, by mutual compact, bind them- 
selves to respect and defend the integrity and national independence 
of each other, and guarantee it by the strength of the whole. But 
England preferred— and prefers — a League of Empires — an Unholy 
Allance to crush liberty, not a Sacred Covenant to maintain liberty, 
even when such a covenant would secure her own independence 
forever. 

No! It is not her national safety nor her legitimate security 
that England wants to safeguard. By any of the four methods 
indicated she could have made provision for these. What she wants 
to make provision for, I repeat, is the perpetuation of her domina- 
tion of the seas by her control of the great Irish harbors. From 
these her ships of war can issue forth on the Atlantic, and in twenty- 
four hours can strangle the commerce of any trade rival she may 
wish to attack and completely cut the communications between 
the Old World and the New. 

She wants this and she wants further, as I have said, the per- 
petuation of the present commercial monopoly through which she 
exploits Ireland today, as she exploited the colonies here until the 
cup overflowed in '76 and the exploitation was eiided forever. 



I_1DKHKT Ul- ».^UINljKt:>:> 



ENGLAND SAFER WITH IRELA] 021 377 701 4 

England would have Americans believe that Britain's safety 
would be threatened by the presence of an independent Ireland on 
her flank. Well do England's statesmen know the contrary. Well 
they know that this England and Britain would be safer as regards 
their legitimate national rights than they have ever been since 
they first started on their campaigns of aggression against Ireland. 

Human nature is human nature. Natural forces will produce 
their natural effects. If certain strong ones seem not to do so at 
times it is because there is some equally strong or stronger force 
interfering. 

With a free Ireland, the preservation of its independence would 
be as strong a rnoving force as the recovery of that independence 
has been a moving force in every generation since the coming of 
the Norman. 

An independent Ireland would see everything to lose in losing 
its independence — in passing under the yoke of any foreign power 
whatsoever. An independent Ireland would see its own indepen- 
dence in jeopardy the moment it saw the independence of Britain 
seriously threatened. Mutual self-interest would make the peoples 
of these two islands, if both independent, the closest possible allies 
in a moment of real national danger to either. 

If they are not so to-day it is because Britain in her selfishness 
has robbed Ireland of every natural motive for such an alliance. 
The fish in the maw of one shark does not trouble about the possible 
advent of another shark. The mouse quivering in the jaws of the 
cat does not fear the approach of the terrier, but, if anything, wel- 
comes it. 

And so Ireland, deprived of its freedom by Britain — in De- 
pendence, and persecuted because it is not satisfied to remain in 
Dependence — is impelled by every natural instinct and force to see 
hope in the downfall of Britain, and hope, not fear, in every attack 
upon Britain. Whereas, in an independent Island, the tendency 
would be all the other way. 

Who is to blame — is it not England? Who can remedy this 
state? Is it not England? If the obvious remedy is not applied 
is it unreasonable to suppose that it is because the will to apply it 
is absent? And yet England pretends to be solicitous about her 
"security" simply. She affects to believe — and would have the 
world believe — that because a Dependent Ireland is hostile an Inde- 
pendent Ireland would necessarily also be hostile. She carefully 
hides that Ireland's present hostility is due solely to England's 
persistent aggression, and that when the aggression ceases, its 
effect — the hostility — will cease also. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS • 



021 377 701 4 



Hollinger Corp. 
pH8.5 



